what's to be done? you can't march into people's houses and take wealth

No, but reasonable actions can be taken to attempt to lower the gap in future earnings while at the same time adding funds to our still unbalanced budget.

Add a couple more higher tax brackets and raise income taxes on the wealthy.Count capital gains as income over 100K and tax at same rate.Get rid of the ceiling on earnings for paying social security.Make sure estate taxes stay around or are reinstated.Add a very small trading tax on the major US stock markets (.03%) to dampen high frequency trading and gambling for short term profit. If you want to gamble trade commodities.Reinstate Glass Steagal or a new version. Don't let banks be in the mortgage business and trading business.Raise the minimum wage and peg it to CPI, inflation, or some other sensible metric.Create a new Federal works program with the goal to rebuild every single defunct federal road, bridge, dam, or other in America. This will take decades. If you grow the bottom and middle, the vast wealth at the top becomes less dangerous to the economy.

My company took away our bonuses, longevity checks, hell even our Christmas hams. They then cut all employees pay by 10%. The three main bosses just had a huge private parking deck built for only them. Then we constantly hear the line "Just be happy you have a job" I am not really complaining as much as I just wanted to show that Mr. Scrooge is indeed real.

lordaction:dready zim: lordaction: Typical liberals wanting to steal money from the people that earned it.

You mean the workers? Not the business owners? The workers did all the work, it`s sort of how they are defined...

Do you think someone earned the money who wasn`t the person who did the work? How does that work?

The workers get a paycheck, don't they? They are paid what they are worth. Your communist dogma is nothing more then a weak rationalization to steal - says a lot about your character. I'm guessing you must be an atheist.

Let me explain to you what is currently happening in our world. This graph is a handy demonstration:

You will note that as our manufacturing output increases, the number of manufacturing jobs falls. Human beings are being replaced by machines. This is just manufacturing; the service sector is now making inroads in automating their jobs too. The population of the planet is increasing exponentially as well.

So, let's go back to economics class. The law of supply and demand, specifically.

When supply of an object goes up, the price goes down.When demand of an object goes down, the price goes down.

These rules are universal and irrefutable.

So what happens when we start to introduce machines to replace human labour? The demand for human labor drops, and so does wages. What happens when the population continues to grow exponentially? The supply of human labor goes up, causing wages to further collapse.

We're nearing the point in human history where the supply of labour will be so high and the demand for labour will be so low that the effective market price of that labour will be Zero.

What in the actual fark do you think is going to happen when that happens?

I'm not a socialist because I want to steal your money. Chances are, I make more than you. I'm a socialist because I have a brain and understand what is happening in the world today.

My company took away our bonuses, longevity checks, hell even our Christmas hams. They then cut all employees pay by 10%. The three main bosses just had a huge private parking deck built for only them. Then we constantly hear the line "Just be happy you have a job" I am not really complaining as much as I just wanted to show that Mr. Scrooge is indeed real.Don't worry, you have hope and change.

A slogan to placate the dumbmasses, because actions are harrrrrd.Under President George W. Bush (Jan. 2007), black unemployment was 7.9%{1}.Under Obama it has risen to 13.4% (Oct. 2012).

I wish I could simply post this as a reply to at least 100 people in this thread, but I am going to post it here.

My parents worked their asses off. My dad worked 16 hour days for months on end when asked, and he was promoted "on schedule" his work career. He worked for the largest company in the US (GE), doing what many like to call "real work" (Jet Engine assembly) He is an Air Force vet, and he did everything they said you needed to do. Mom worked there too.

With two kids and a modest house in (mostly) rural Southwest Ohio they tried to make a family.

I rarely saw my parents growing up because they were almost always at work when I was awake.

We vacationed modestly (a week in Georgia at a family friends house) two times in 18 years.

We didn't have enough for me and my sister to go to college, but we had enough that no one went hungry and we had doctors and food and clothes.

Mt grandfather worked for GE as well, and my grandmother raised 4 kids, and a housefull of grandchildren so that her kids could work to achieve better than they themselves had.

Fast forward 25 years.

Grandpa is dead, not surprisingly, but his wasting illness destroyed most of the family funds because GE cut health care for pensioners. He gave them his best years, they promised to take care of him. They lied.

Dad is in his 70's, working part time to keep the lights on. He retired late, and then 10 years later his pension is now a joke. Almost all the money is gone. It is less than 20% of what he was promised.

401K? HA! Lost in 2008.. "sorry . we made some bad deals in real estate"

He's close to losing his house. He can't afford to keep paying for my Grandmothers care (once again, that was supposed to be covered by GE and the Government, but NOPE.. Times are tough.. we lied!)

He can't even afford to fix the injuries caused by doing the job the company made him do. Most of his contemporaries are either dead or in a wheelchair due to knee or back injuries.

GE isn't gonna fix it. They were supposed to. That was the deal. Help us, we'll take care of you.

Most of my entire extended family gave the best of their lives to the biggest company in the USA, and that company turned its back on them, and left them to rot, literally, in "the shareholders interest"

Now they are coming after my grandmothers meager savings to pay her taxes.

Think about that for a minute. This woman has never had a new car. Her husband flew in the battle of Midway and she raised two families after the war. He built her a house and a 10 acre farm with his two hands. The company and the country said they would take care of her. That was the deal. Now they have threatened her with Jail because she can't pay her taxes while living in a nursing home with no assets left to her name... and she is CONTEMPLATING LETTING THEM PUT HER IN JAIL so she is not a burden to the family that can no longer afford to pay her medical bills.

Dad is crushed that he can't afford to fix it, and I am living paycheck to paycheck with no medical insurance.

What the hell has this nation become when that story is not exceptional.. not even uncommon?

/ObligReagan has been out of office for how many years now? Bush disagreed with his economic beliefs calling them "Voodoo economics" and changed the course.... leading to the bush recession. Remember "It's the economy stupid"?

So, how long has zero been in office? You're blaming Reagan who's been dead longer than zero has been at the helm.

So, you think that the bad economy of the late 80s is because of Bush sr.? lol oh god, it burns.

Hyper conservatism can never be wrong.

What we need is 20 straight years of Democratic control of the WH and congress. No more of this '8 years and hand off' bullshiat. We need a solid decade of Democratic control of the government so that we can 'see' what can come of it. And then let the American people decide if the GOP alternatives are better or not.

Because right now, it's stupid. We let the GOP fark things up with foreign wars and obscene tax cuts and cronyism and all but open bribery in the government at the highest level...and when shiat goes south, they throw up a lamb to be slaughtered after 8 years and the Democrats take over.

Democrats spend 8 years fixing the GOP fark ups and disasters and get us out of the wars and the whole time, the GOP is snarking and complaining about how the Democrats aren't fixing things fast enough. And at the end of the 8 years, they talk about integrity of the office and how corrupt the Democrats are and weak on crime and our enemies are laughing at us...etc etc etc...

And we vote them back in and they go right back to provoking foreign wars and looting the government for as much as they can, and we continually have the unmitigated gall to act SURPRISED.

fark that. 2016 needs to be the point where we give the Democrats another 8 years in the WH.

stir22:Nutsac_Jim: stir22: Jobs that used to pay a living wage just dont anymore. I know and love people who make 8.50 an hour and are supposed to make ends meet on that. Food, shelter, gas insurance, etc. Couple that with t ...

EXACTLY. you are much more eloquent than am i. well-said.

If they chose to not stay in school and learn some knowledge, and also chose to not learn a marketable trade, then they deserve 8.50 an hour.

If you go out whoring at night and never use protection, then you deserve to get herpes. That is the logical result of your action.

ummmm.......i know a WHOLE LOT of college grads delivering pizzas and doing other such jobs.......and no, not just ones with liberal arts degrees.

Pizza delivery used to be decent job to pay for college. But then the price of fuel doubled (as did tuition), the restaurant compensation for your car expenses halved and after the last minimum wage increase, they figured out how to pay LESS because tipped employees don't qualify for full minimum wage in most states.

Yes, if they increase the minimum wage there will be less jobs. One because they'll stop overstaffing just because labor is cheap. Two, wannabe millionaire franchisees with gimmick restaurants dropped every 30 miles will have to rely on quality product to expand and make money rather than lean on the fact that labor only costs 15%. Three, the employees getting a better minimum wage won't have to rely on as many hours at other jobs to get the basics. Lastly, the people in jobs just outside minimum wage will stop getting ripped off on their labor too and see some increases as their wages are equivalent to minimum wage of the 70's.

stir22:Thunderpipes: stir22: revolutions don't start until the masses can't feed their families. that's why the mega-rich and political parties make sure that the masses have just enough to live on. dip below that, and it's game on. they won't let that happen.

Who is "they? You do realize, almost all the liberal leaders pushing policy, are mega rich, right?

i do. i refer to "they" as the uber-rich, policy makers, and fortune 500 ceo's.... i've started to think that they are all trolling us. especially the pubs and dems. that's it's all a charade, a facade.....they get together at the highest levels and decide who gets to be in power for awhile...and, that it doesn't really matter.

for the record, i do very well. six figure income, steady job with benefits....etc. i'm okay. but the middle class, as we know it, is gone....and i feel for the millions who just want to do "a little better." also, i feel that the gap that is widening between the uber-rich and uber-poor is by design, and that it doesn't matter who is in power in Washington.

/just my opinion, ymmv

I feel your pain. I am much in the same boat as you. I started out lower middle class, and have done very well. I have a six figure income as well (and I don't mean a smidgen over 100k, either) and things that go with it. I, for the first time in my life, don't have to check my bank account before I spend money. I can have my bills paid automatically, I can eat out as much as I want, and drive a nice car.

People I grew up with almost universally are scraping by. People I am very close to are living in abject poverty, one or two weeks from being on the street. I've had life long friends ask me for money to buy food. Much more prevalent than that are people who cant afford to go to the doctor.

Jobs that used to pay a living wage just dont anymore. I know and love people who make 8.50 an hour and are supposed to make ends meet on that. Food, shelter, gas insurance, etc. Couple that with the courts propensity to suspend someones license for not paying certain bills, and we've created an entire underclass of people as well as an overclass. With a very very few like you and me in the middle.

Jobs used to pay enough to support people, now they dont, and "Job Creators" realize that the government will happily subsidize their slave wages with welfare and medicaid. What do Job Creators do? They do what they do. Pay the lowest wages they possibly can while maximizing profits for sharholders. Hell it would be illegal if they didn't.

lordaction:dready zim: lordaction: Typical liberals wanting to steal money from the people that earned it.

You mean the workers? Not the business owners? The workers did all the work, it`s sort of how they are defined...

Do you think someone earned the money who wasn`t the person who did the work? How does that work?

The workers get a paycheck, don't they? They are paid what they are worth. Your communist dogma is nothing more then a weak rationalization to steal - says a lot about your character. I'm guessing you must be an atheist.

See that bold part? You failed right there. Logical fallacy, indicative of suffering from the Just World delusion.

Your irrelevant prod at atheism at the end there tends to confirm the diagnosis.

what's to be done? you can't march into people's houses and take wealth

No, but reasonable actions can be taken to attempt to lower the gap in future earnings while at the same time adding funds to our still unbalanced budget.

Add a couple more higher tax brackets and raise income taxes on the wealthy.Count capital gains as income over 100K and tax at same rate.Get rid of the ceiling on earnings for paying social security.Make sure estate taxes stay around or are reinstated.Add a very small trading tax on the major US stock markets (.03%) to dampen high frequency trading and gambling for short term profit. If you want to gamble trade commodities.Reinstate Glass Steagal or a new version. Don't let banks be in the mortgage business and trading business.Raise the minimum wage and peg it to CPI, inflation, or some other sensible metric.Create a new Federal works program with the goal to rebuild every single defunct federal road, bridge, dam, or other in America. This will take decades. If you grow the bottom and middle, the vast wealth at the top becomes less dangerous to the economy.

see, this is what I meant. you get a 'smart!' click

Also, DO put a hard limit on individual wealth gain. Peg it to the minimum wage to give them an incentive to increase that...

fark your american dream that lets a few people ruin the world for the rest of us.

Yes, by all means lets punnish success and see how that works

Success built on the hard work of others deserves punishment. It would work better if we rewarded hard work, not your ability to screw over others.

How you get your success matters. A lot.

But it is ok to just take it from those whom you feel didnt "earn it" properly? If they break the law aquiring it, im with you. If they did not, i can not.

Then all you have to do is purchase your own laws. Or the guys that make them. If you had some cash, that might be possible.

Putting aside who "deserves" what, an economy that's 70% reliant on consumer spending will not thrive and grow if all the gains from it go to a small percentage of people. There's no way to square that circle.

DeathByGeekSquad:Carn: DeathByGeekSquad: Jorn the Younger: DrPainMD: Is this the thread where everybody biatches about other people's money when they should be out earning money for themselves?

Is this the thread where conservatrolls show up to berate the poor for not having the good sense to be born wealthy, or attempt to maintain the fallacy that harder work turns into increased rewards?

Is this the thread where people have no job creativity and expect to make millions as a cubicle drone?

This is the thread where certain people who are doing just fine themselves TYVM, remind the droolers and the knuckle draggers that historically, both in our country and in others, this type of wealth inequality has led to massive financial upheaval at best (Great Depression, many other financial Panics), and at worst to violent revolution (French, Russian, Mexican et al). There are reasonable, pragmatic steps we can take, which we had in place at various times in the last 100 years when our country was doing better than it is now, which would help to set things on a more equal footing in the future. But go ahead and pretend like the only thing going on here is jealousy.

Go ahead and highlight specifically where I brought jealousy into the equation.

In the meantime, take a moment to consider the possibility that the reason some folks get mired in financial woe is because of their own decisions, not the cards that life handed them. The psychologists who are better suited for corporate psychology but insist on attempting to get jobs in private care, resulting in constant rejection and failure with massing debt. The aforementioned office drones who wouldn't recognize a glass ceiling if it smacked them repeatedly in the head.

Somewhere along the line, our nation became obsessed with the idea of working in a corporate environment, toiling away for the greater good. This has created a bottleneck. This is where job creativity pays dividends. Explore professions outside of the regular grind.

There you go. Who expects to make millions (per year) as a cubicle drone? You're going with the tried and true Bootstraps argument. All poor people, every single one of them, is poor, because they just aren't trying hard enough, right? If you'd like to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion, perhaps you could explain why one or many of my suggestions for economic regulation should or shouldn't be implemented?

I'm approaching this from the pragmatic stance of "vast income inequality is an unstable economic situation and historically is bad for both those wealthy individuals and the country at large". Feel free to argue against this point, but I will warn you that unless you're just playing devil's advocate, you risk looking very stupid.

Many years ago a wise man said that you either have to eliminate poverty for the masses or eliminate democracy for the masses because in a properly democratic society where the majority is poor they would just vote to take the money from the rich.

As this has not happened and in fact seems completely improbable I will let you draw your own conclusion as to the level of democracy in the United States...

What has actually happened is that the efforts of the middle and lower classes have been funneled into the pockets of the top due to reductions in benefits, hours and cost of living wage increases. And the only thing that's going to trickle down, the only thing that's been passed down for about three decades now, is the inflation.

If there was only 10 dollars in the entire world and it cost a dollar a day to live and I kept 9 of the dollars in a safe and only let you have access to one of the dollars, you would earn the dollar in a day then have to give it to me to pay for your food etc (which costs me 50 cents) so I print another dollar every two days because that is my `profit` which makes your dollar worth a little less each day so even if you save some it costs that much more to buy your food, pay rent etc so you never get out of poverty.

This is the world we live in except scaled up. It does not matter how hard you work, I control the money so I make damn well sure your work will not improve your life, only mine.

In what way am I *not* being a coont to you? In what way is the situation *not* my fault?

Lady J:untaken_name: Lady J: what's to be done? you can't march into people's houses and take wealth

I wish I was so sheltered that I had never heard of "robbery" or "home invasion". That would be really nice.

what are these outlandish concepts? my empty little head is whirling!

don't be thick. robbery and home invasion are illegal, anything you get that way you're not going to be allowed to keep.

the adults are talking about sustainable change

You push a people far enough and they'll make sustainable change in a most direct fashion. They'll decide that the current set of laws have failed them, they'll set aside those laws, and they'll rectify the situation in the most base and primal of ways. By force. It's happened over and over and over again, down through history, when a people get pushed too far by those on top. And time and time again, those on top don't pay attention to history and act all shocked when they get drug down from the top and get killed and their stuff taken.

And just like that line in Armageddon, it's not a matter of 'if' it'll happen again, it's just a matter of 'when.'

My company took away our bonuses, longevity checks, hell even our Christmas hams. They then cut all employees pay by 10%. The three main bosses just had a huge private parking deck built for only them. Then we constantly hear the line "Just be happy you have a job" I am not really complaining as much as I just wanted to show that Mr. Scrooge is indeed real.Don't worry, you have hope and change.

A slogan to placate the dumbmasses, because actions are harrrrrd.Under President George W. Bush (Jan. 2007), black unemployment was 7.9%{1}.Under Obama it has risen to 13.4% (Oct. 2012).

Too bad Facts are bannable offenses on fark.

Yeah, you're right, the better the wealthy are doing the worse off the lower class is:

The wealthy are stealing money from the poor (yes in many cases it should be labelled as actual theft), shipping jobs overseas after maxing out the debt on the people in this country thereby limiting the ability to repay. I don't think think you can call that jealousy.

People are being finacially farked and hard. I think alot of it has to do with the debt collection agencies and their relationship to the companies they represent. It's more money for all if it goes thru DC.

Having read only the first page, the usual suspects showed and once again accused liberals of simply being jealous of rich people. What you dolts understand is that it's not about personal envy (though I wouldn't mind driving a Porsche), but about how unhealthy society becomes once wealth disparity hits levels like this. Instead of seeing the big picture, the 1% white knighters use the opportunity to accuse the poor of having made bad life decisions, or the middle class for not working hard enough. Furthermore, that same 1% gains more control over the government year by year in order to maintain their status, which is too often at the expense of "regular" people.

If you can't understand why this concerns so many people, it's doubtful you understand anything about how a .0stable society works long-term.

Smelly Pirate Hooker:Shadow Blasko: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Shadow Blasko: I wish I could simply post this as a reply to at least 100 people in this thread, but I am going to post it here. ....GE isn't gonna fix it. They ...

Clearly, your family isn't bootstrappy enough.

But seriously, the post-WW2 economy in the U.S. (up until about the mid-1970s) was a fluke. The rest of the world was in a shambles because of the war and the biggest countries (China, USSR and India) spent about 20 years farking around with stupid politics, hamstringing their economies to the extent that they were not serious competition for us (I hope somebody in the U.S. government had enough of a sense of humor to send the Soviets and the leaders in China and India a thank you note for that). Manufacturing (that hadn't yet moved overseas) needed lots of warm bodies, so labor here had bargaining power. And all those Boomers were buying houses and cars and appliances and college educations, so there was a large part of the market for all the stuff we were building and manufacturing, leading to biatchin' pay and benefits for people who didn't have college degrees.

All that's changed. And I doubt it's going to change back. The corporations only granted labor the benefits they did because they felt they had to. They never felt loyalty. Not to workers, anyway. And now the Boomers, who were assets in the fat years, are old, sick liabilities.

I know it's not, but I just can't wrap my head around how it became legal for companies to say "Nope, we can't pay our pensions.. so we're not gonna" and just walk away from a contract, while continuing to be a MASSIVE company with massive assets and huge amounts of cash they can hide with creative book keeping.

If I did that, I would go to jail.

The banks that did it got MONEY for screwing up, and the people that run those banks.. they didn't lose everything... did they? Why not?

Because citizens can't afford the legal system that was supposed to protect US.

Because companies wr ...

same here. we cant escape the trap with the rules they made to make it.

You have no right to call me a whore. How would you know what a whore is? I don't see you paying for a woman to have dinner with you, you certainly wouldnt pay a woman to fark you.

Also, telling someone to "shut their whore mouth" on FARK is somewhat of a term of endearment. A kind of "I disagree with you, but it's all good."

I feel no camaraderie with you. I do not like you. I think you have a basic understanding of economic concepts, and think it entitles you to pass sweeping judgements. You also think your experiences should apply to everyone else regardless of their circumstances, and that how you see things is the same way everyone else sees them. This behavior is pretty typical of a 16-18 yr old teenager. Most people grow out of that, you clearly did not.

Disagree with me all you want, call me names if you will. I don't mind, you aint got nothin on me, Mr. Paul. But do not address me with anything approximating a term of endearment, you cocksucker.

You are right. I make wild assertions and think that because 2 + 2 = 4 in my little world, that it applies to other worlds too.

It isn't magic.It isn't "Well I got by without insurance in my 20's so everyone else can too. It was if you pay cash for shiat, the banker cant take it from you.It applies to all worlds.

If people want to lease a car and get a mortgage so they can 'have their cake sooner' then more power to them. They are gambling.No amount of crying about evil bankers changes that.

Now shut your whore mouth for making an assumption that I paid cash for residence and then calling me a liar about it.

In the midst of standing on your soapbox and proclaiming how perfect your plan is, and how well it's gone so far pray consider the possibility that not everyone will happen upon the same circumstances as you. Imagine that the times when opportunity went well for you go the other way for someone else. Stretch your mind for the concept of "there but for the grace of God go I" when someone tells you that the breaks *didn't* fall for them like they have for you. Imagine if you will how random chance handing another person a shiat sandwich may *not* be the result of being an idiot who can't manage the simple task of handling their money.

Nevermind. It was a silly request. I don't want you to strain something.

Shadow Blasko:I wish I could simply post this as a reply to at least 100 people in this thread, but I am going to post it here. ....GE isn't gonna fix it. They ...

Clearly, your family isn't bootstrappy enough.

But seriously, the post-WW2 economy in the U.S. (up until about the mid-1970s) was a fluke. The rest of the world was in a shambles because of the war and the biggest countries (China, USSR and India) spent about 20 years farking around with stupid politics, hamstringing their economies to the extent that they were not serious competition for us (I hope somebody in the U.S. government had enough of a sense of humor to send the Soviets and the leaders in China and India a thank you note for that). Manufacturing (that hadn't yet moved overseas) needed lots of warm bodies, so labor here had bargaining power. And all those Boomers were buying houses and cars and appliances and college educations, so there was a large part of the market for all the stuff we were building and manufacturing, leading to biatchin' pay and benefits for people who didn't have college degrees.

All that's changed. And I doubt it's going to change back. The corporations only granted labor the benefits they did because they felt they had to. They never felt loyalty. Not to workers, anyway. And now the Boomers, who were assets in the fat years, are old, sick liabilities.

/ObligReagan has been out of office for how many years now? Bush disagreed with his economic beliefs calling them "Voodoo economics" and changed the course.... leading to the bush recession. Remember "It's the economy stupid"?

So, how long has zero been in office? You're blaming Reagan who's been dead longer than zero has been at the helm.

So, you think that the bad economy of the late 80s is because of Bush sr.? lol oh god, it burns.

Hyper conservatism can never be wrong.

What we need is 20 straight years of Democratic control of the WH and congress. No more of this '8 years and hand off' bullshiat. We need a solid decade of Democratic control of the government so that we can 'see' what can come of it. And then let the American people decide if the GOP alternatives are better or not.

Because right now, it's stupid. We let the GOP fark things up with foreign wars and obscene tax cuts and cronyism and all but open bribery in the government at the highest level...and when shiat goes south, they throw up a lamb to be slaughtered after 8 years and the Democrats take over.

Democrats spend 8 years fixing the GOP fark ups and disasters and get us out of the wars and the whole time, the GOP is snarking and complaining about how the Democrats aren't fixing things fast enough. And at the end of the 8 years, they talk about integrity of the office and how corrupt the Democrats are and weak on crime and our enemies are laughing at us...etc etc etc...

And we vote them back in and they go right back to provoking foreign wars and looting the government for as much as they can, and we continually have the unmitigated gall to act SURPRISED.

fark that. 2016 needs to be the point where we give the Democrats another 8 years in the WH.

When it still doesn't work what will your excuse be? You obviously haven't noticed that democrats are just as corrupt as republicans. They own stock in the same companies, vacation at the same resorts, and get gifts from the same lobbyists. They're more than willing to start wars, blame the other party for their own failures, and take credit for the other's accomplishments.

The only thing we need in DC is a guillotine in front of the Capitol Building. Don't stop until they're all dead, then do the same thing to their replacements. After half a dozen times they'll get the message.

EWreckedSean:Because keeping garbage cans empty and bathrooms clean equates to more work than keeping a business running and thousands of people employed?

We have had a notion in this country since it's inception, a throwback to our English class system heritage, that people who work with their hands are yobs, inconsequential, failures and not as "good" as the people with clean fingernails and their mortgage in their pocket. And they sure as sh*t milked it, those well scrubbed and suited cocksuckers. And we let them. I got an idea. Everybody go on e-bay or to a goodwill and buy a suit or a dress that fits. Wear them. Every day. Watch the FOX news crowd blame it on some communiss conspiracy. *snort*

Neighborhood Watch:Jorn the Younger: Don't forget about the tripling of worker efficiency thanks to technology, so one person now does the work of three, for less pay.

But-b-b-but liberals love science!

It's the ignorant, conservative businessmen who are opposed to it.

Liberals are interested in science because it can be used to increase knowledge and help people.Corporations are interested in science because it can be used to increase profits and help executives and shareholders.

Ricardo Klement:To then declare the two parties are the same presupposes there was another option that was just as reasonable.

No, that's a very stretched analogy that doesn't hold water. And it overlooks that fact that by and large, neither party cares about anybody's "toothache" but the ones being suffered by the people who sign their checks.

The fact that there are only two "viable" parties and that anybody who tries to add another is shouted down with "YOU'RE IRRELEVANT!" is vastly relevant

Ricardo Klement:And if anything makes the parties less reflective of the electorate, it's because of people who have too much ego to be part of that negotiation and want to go out and create their own parties.

Um, no. That's an amazing bit of projecting that makes assumptions that are so doggedly jingoistic and superglued to very rose colored notions that I an't even begin to address the absolute naivety that is displayed in even vaguely subscribing to them.

Ricardo Klement:Maybe people should try something different and join one of the two parties and try to influence their primaries.

Which will lead to elections which will lead to switching the pawn on the board which leads us, so far, precisely here. Only in your rainbow farting unicorn model, there is one glaring impediment to this accomplishing anything other than locking down the suckers to either chocolate or vanilla. Nothing changes. At all.

The difference between any two given methods are self evident in the results. So far, both of these allegedly different ideologies have gotten us, precisely, here and the same people are holding the same disparately huge amount of actual wealth in the same accounts. It's nice to preach ideology and hold up the ostensibly august body that is a pack of appointed bishops who are in place to ponder the long and mind implications of laws that serve very few of the 99% in any useful way, but they're still just pieces on the board. Not the players.

There are two other factors to consider: to a large degree, the two parties do a lot to undo each others' work. But, more importantly, when confronted by the same sets of problems, when disparate people agree on the course of action, it's usually because that course of action is the right one.

You know that Republicans and Democrats both agree that if you get tooth pain, you should see a dentist? And if you have a cavity, you should get it filled? To then declare the two parties are the same presupposes there was another option that was just as reasonable.

This last bit is what third parties want you to believe. The truth is that, for the most part, many of the solutions that are the same between the parties are the same because the combination of incentives and the set of available solutions end up with the same application. This isn't some mysterious "owned by the same people" nonsense, it's because that's how it is.

That there's two parties rather than 20 is irrelevant. You'd end up with the same things anyway. If you notice, parliamentary systems end up in two sides once the elections are all over: the government coalition, and the opposition. The difference is purely where that negotiation takes place. In the US, it's before the election. In England, it's after. And if anything makes the parties less reflective of the electorate, it's because of people who have too much ego to be part of that negotiation and want to go out and create their own parties.

This third-party battle has been going on for well over 100 years. Maybe people should try something different and join one of the two parties and try to influence their primaries. The Tea Party did it in VA - that's why Cuccinelli is the gubernatorial candidate and yet the least conservative candidate on the Republican ticket.

Look for - Major shift in currency valuation. China flexing on us and buying up American properties. Another ostensibly inevitable hiccup at the the bookie joint on Wall St. and for it to take another entire market sector with it.

ATM, our currency is sucking wind and they need to find somebody to buy up more of our debt, which is all currency is, to keep it afloat. Watch very closely as to who buys that debt and what they do in the next ten years.

This isn't Jennifer government. The people running this business plan to it's logical conclusion have no flag, no god, and no country and they can't wait to dismantle the impediments of such notions in order to get the sh*t through the goose.

"Yeah, we blew more sh*t up. If you remove these obstacles to our profiteering, we wont have to blow anything else up." Investment bankers are terrorists. Corporations are just board markers. There's just a few players left. And when the etch a sketch gets shaken, to stretch the metaphor, the people moving those markers on the board are going to make damn sure they're holding it. Some men just want to see the world burn, as long as they can view it from a third story window in a gated mansion. Anybody who actually believes that this can continue forever cause "AMERICA!" should read up on a few other ordained and exceptional nations that aren't here anymore.

what's to be done? you can't march into people's houses and take wealth

Why not? The megawealthy are gaming the system and have no problem taking wealth. Nothing wrong with crashing the economy, forcing people out of work, then seizing people's homes when they can't pay the mortgage. All, I might add, while using their victims' tax dollars to insulate themselves from any losses or risk.

The only difference is they do it "legally" by buying the people who make the laws. The real tragedy is that we have the usual Fark shills in this thread who are being forced to bend over and squeal like a pig just like the rest of us. The difference is they like it and squeal for more.

Magnanimous_J:The rich get richer, that's the way of the world. But by concentrating on hating the wealthy for their wealth doesn't put another dollar in your pocket. You can tax them to oblivion if it makes you feel better, but it won't fix anything.

400 families get $2 trillion. Taxing that $2 trillion "into oblivion" would, in fact, fix a whole lot of shiat, and fast! But no one is arguing that "oblivion" strawman point in the first place, so who farking cares?

Asking the richest of the rich to pay their fair share* in taxes is not an onerous demand. It is reasonable and fair. And it would be a decent step in the right direction.

*A legit topic of debate is the definition of 'fair share' in this context... but I wanted to clean up the broader conceptual misunderstanding first.

Nutsac_Jim:Who forced these people to buy things on credit and not repay it?

The broken nature of our economic system.

Say you need a house. For most people, the breakdown is like so : Either waste hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years paying rent, which is bad, or take the very intelligent risk of taking a loan to purchase property, which is sadly, incredibly overpriced in our market precisely because investment capitalism paired with sort sighted greed via real estate speculation has driven housing prices very, very high. So the system has created artificial value, where the desire to flip property for profit overshadows the more common goal of simply needing a place to live. However, despite this, it's still a far more sensible plan than just dumping money into a rent hole, so people take the frankly intelligent risk.

However, the boom and bust cycle of an economy, any economy is going to mean that some people, during down swings, are going to end up unemployed as businesses, seeing less business and profit, downsize. This is inevitable, and it's not someone's "fault." During these typically temporary periods of unemployment, people may default or fall behind on payments for these loans. We have, in the US, a host of rules and incentives to keep the lenders from overreacting and foreclosing on these people during these, as stated, typically temporary periods of misfortune. Unfortunately, again, short term, anti-social greed has generated a condition where many lenders are refusing to consider this, and they are happily trashing lives, the economy and whole neighborhoods simply to be self serving and greedy. Sometimes they do this legally, more and more lately not even that, but in neither case is it appropriate, being neither ethical nor practically desirable in the long run for our economy or society.

The system is broken and many towards the top of the economy wealth scale are abusing it horribly. It's inappropriate and, frankly, shiatty to keep trying to blame people abused and exploited by bad people employing a broken system to exploit need. If you can't envision and promote a better system than that then get out of social philosophy and politics and for god's sake, please don't vote.

Infernalist:We let the GOP fark things up with foreign wars and obscene tax cuts and cronyism and all but open bribery in the government at the highest level..

And then we changed control of the House, Senate and White House to the Democrats and let them do it for a while.

Did the wars continue? Yep. Obama immediately tripled the size of the war in Afghanistan and tried to extend the war in Iraq past the treaty date for total withdrawal not to mention starting a war in Libya and trying to start another in Syria.

Were the Bush tax cuts for the rich allowed to expire as scheduled? Nope. They were made a permanent part of the tax code just a few months ago. (Fiscal Cliff!!!11!)

Has cronyism continued? Are you farking kidding me? Donate some money to Obama and you get to be an ambassador. Donate enough money and you get to pick your own Secretary of the Treasury.

Has Bribery continued? You didn't notice too many of the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy being prosecuted, did you?

Telos:netcentric: Democrats are hoping angry taxpayers will blame the rich for having to send money to Washington

Class envy.

Despite record tax revenues, the federal government still racked up $755 billion deficit in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013

I think I know why there are issues for the middle class today. And it isn't because of a few wealthy individuals.

You have to work 107 days in America, just to pay your tax bill.

Maybe a large bloated Government is the problem.

You and I might have to work 107 days to pay our tax bill, but people who actually have money don't pay much in taxes. Maybe the bloated government isn't the problem, maybe it's the top 1% avoiding their fair share of taxes.

Might want to actually look at some numbers to see how stupidly wrong you are.

stir22:revolutions don't start until the masses can't feed their families. that's why the mega-rich and political parties make sure that the masses have just enough to live on. dip below that, and it's game on. they won't let that happen.

Who is "they? You do realize, almost all the liberal leaders pushing policy, are mega rich, right?

revolutions don't start until the masses can't feed their families. that's why the mega-rich and political parties make sure that the masses have just enough to live on. dip below that, and it's game on. they won't let that happen.

netcentric:Democrats are hoping angry taxpayers will blame the rich for having to send money to Washington

Class envy.

Despite record tax revenues, the federal government still racked up $755 billion deficit in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013

I think I know why there are issues for the middle class today. And it isn't because of a few wealthy individuals.

You have to work 107 days in America, just to pay your tax bill.

Maybe a large bloated Government is the problem.

You and I might have to work 107 days to pay our tax bill, but people who actually have money don't pay much in taxes. Maybe the bloated government isn't the problem, maybe it's the top 1% avoiding their fair share of taxes.

Ricardo Klement:Carn: Joe Blowme: Carn: Joe Blowme: Carn: There you go. Who expects to make millions (per year) as a cubicle drone? You're going with the tried and true Bootstraps argument. All poor people, every single one of them, is poor, because they just aren't trying hard enough, right?

And then there is you on the other side of the argument, all rich people did not earn it but instead robbed poor people to get rich.

/both are stupid

Which is not even remotely my argument as stated just below my post that you quoted, but you decided to cut it out. Keep on trollin Joe.

If that is not what you are saying then why the hate for those who have more than you?

When did I say anything about hate? I've said it a few times already, my stance is pragmatic. Current conditions are historically bad both for the country at large and the individuals holding the vast quantities of wealth. We should take steps that will narrow the gap in the future both in the form of reinstating higher taxes on the wealthy (rates that have been much higher than they are currently for close to 100 years) and in the form of pushing economic growth for the bottom and middle and the easiest, most obvious, and currently very necessary way to do that is to start a huge Infrastructure development program.

Part of the problem is that any system that allows merit to be rewarded and allows some proportion of wealth to be reinvested and some proportion passed-on to future generations is a system wherein wealth converges. Free Market systems will certainly have wealth convergence be a marked feature.

I agree and I am totally ok with this. The problem is that currently there is too much convergence on too few people. We need to tilt things back a little bit in the other direction.

forcebender:For what it's worth, if you liquidated all that cash and redistributed to the entire US population (350M) that would be a payment of $142 a year for the next 40 years (in 2013 dollars.) Or a single payment of $5714 ... to EVERY person in the US.

lordaction:dready zim: lordaction: Typical liberals wanting to steal money from the people that earned it.

You mean the workers? Not the business owners? The workers did all the work, it`s sort of how they are defined...

Do you think someone earned the money who wasn`t the person who did the work? How does that work?

The workers get a paycheck, don't they? They are paid what they are worth. Your communist dogma is nothing more then a weak rationalization to steal - says a lot about your character. I'm guessing you must be an atheist.

When companies do not pay enough to live on without getting government assistance, then it is the corporations who are stealing from taxpayers, not the employees. You are a very reliable troll, and I have no doubt you already know this, asshole.

doubled99:Man I hate people who have achieved far more than me. Fark them, man.

I'm not upset that they're so successful, or even that they're using that success to push undue influence. It's that they use that influence to further cement themselves in their position at the expense of everyone else. With the exception of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, it seems like today's super-rich have no sense of noblesse oblige.

untaken_name:give me doughnuts: netcentric: Democrats are hoping angry taxpayers will blame the rich for having to send money to Washington

Class envy.

Despite record tax revenues, the federal government still racked up $755 billion deficit in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013

I think I know why there are issues for the middle class today. And it isn't because of a few wealthy individuals.

You have to work 107 days in America, just to pay your tax bill.

Maybe a large bloated Government is the problem.

And yet we have one of the lowest individual and corporate tax burdens in the developed world.So maybe the problem isn't bloated government.

Because spending 1.30 times what you take in is not a problem? Leaving a debt so large it will consume your descendants isn't a problem? Geez, what do you consider to be a problem?

How about *what* the miserable assholes we send to represent us *do* with that money? You know, cheap things like starting wars, prosecuting pot smokers, handing out farm subsidies and bales of money to corporations who are already rich?

No, you're absolutely right! We are in the place we are because of greedy middle-class taxpayers! Those bastards in Iowa insist on p*ssing off middle-easterners so much that they keep trying to kill us, so we gotta go get 'em - amirite?

\go ahead, keep parroting those talking points\\they must be telling you all the truth - none of those radio guys profit from stirring your ass up

Ricardo Klement:Slaves2Darkness: Not unless we raise inflation to 5-8%. The problem right now is that firms and individuals are sitting on mountains, oceans, a veritable dragon's hoard of cash, because with inflation this low the opportunity cost of holding cash is less than the opportunity cost of spending it on capital or land.

No.

They're not stuffing that money into mattresses.

it's being invested out of the country in emerging markets, the middle class subsidizes their profits and they take those profits and invest them in developing markets and tax shelters.

Joe Blowme:Carn: Joe Blowme: Carn: There you go. Who expects to make millions (per year) as a cubicle drone? You're going with the tried and true Bootstraps argument. All poor people, every single one of them, is poor, because they just aren't trying hard enough, right?

And then there is you on the other side of the argument, all rich people did not earn it but instead robbed poor people to get rich.

/both are stupid

Which is not even remotely my argument as stated just below my post that you quoted, but you decided to cut it out. Keep on trollin Joe.

If that is not what you are saying then why the hate for those who have more than you?

When did I say anything about hate? I've said it a few times already, my stance is pragmatic. Current conditions are historically bad both for the country at large and the individuals holding the vast quantities of wealth. We should take steps that will narrow the gap in the future both in the form of reinstating higher taxes on the wealthy (rates that have been much higher than they are currently for close to 100 years) and in the form of pushing economic growth for the bottom and middle and the easiest, most obvious, and currently very necessary way to do that is to start a huge Infrastructure development program.

Joe Blowme:Carn: Joe Blowme: Carn: There you go. Who expects to make millions (per year) as a cubicle drone? You're going with the tried and true Bootstraps argument. All poor people, every single one of them, is poor, because they just aren't trying hard enough, right?

And then there is you on the other side of the argument, all rich people did not earn it but instead robbed poor people to get rich.

/both are stupid

Which is not even remotely my argument as stated just below my post that you quoted, but you decided to cut it out. Keep on trollin Joe.

If that is not what you are saying then why the hate for those who have more than you?

I think he's saying the same thing Dusk-You-n-Me was saying, you simply can't run an economy that relies on consumerism when all the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of few people. There's no hate in that, it's just the way it works.

Not unless we raise inflation to 5-8%. The problem right now is that firms and individuals are sitting on mountains, oceans, a veritable dragon's hoard of cash, because with inflation this low the opportunity cost of holding cash is less than the opportunity cost of spending it on capital or land.

A few questions to redirect this thread as people are sounding angry and defensive on both sides:1. What percentage of Americans are earning minimum wage?2. What percentage of those are working at least 40 hours a week?3. Do they have the basics? Food security, heat, shelter?

If it is a large percentage covered by 1 and 2, and 3 is no, then there is a big problem. How it can be addressed is another issue.

Joe Blowme:Carn: There you go. Who expects to make millions (per year) as a cubicle drone? You're going with the tried and true Bootstraps argument. All poor people, every single one of them, is poor, because they just aren't trying hard enough, right?

And then there is you on the other side of the argument, all rich people did not earn it but instead robbed poor people to get rich.

/both are stupid

Which is not even remotely my argument as stated just below my post that you quoted, but you decided to cut it out. Keep on trollin Joe.

Actually, yes they are. If the rich guy gets his money by paying the poor guy a minimal amount when he could just as easily pay the poor guy more.

Right, what has happened is that given two people, a rich person and a poor person, and given that at the beginning of the financial crisis the rich person had 10$ and the poor person had 1$, and given that the Fed created 10$ of new wealth, the rich person now has 19$ and the poor person has 2$.

So yeah, the poor are getting poorer as the rich get richer...

In your example the poor guy doubled their money while the rich less than doubled theirs, in reality, with the new taxes, increased cost of living etc the poor guy still only has a dollar but the rich now have 19 instead of 9...

You are right, the poor got effectively none of the TARP bailout or any of the resultant QE. Essentially the entire bailout went to shareholders of large (mostly banking) companies while anyone not wealthy enough to hold investments got precisely nothing (or even worse, got laid off to maximize shareholder profits). My question is, how much more will society put up with? It comes down to a very small number of people in society holding all of us back.

There was a reason that socialism, anarchism, and even communism were popular and growing ideologies starting in the late 19th century until the New Deal. I wonder how many people here complaining of wealth redistribution to the bottom have even heard of Eugene V. Debs.

The thing about history is that the wealth will be redistributed one way or another once society reaches a breaking point. The rich get too greedy, they can either give some of their disproportionate wealth away (a la FDR) while keeping their position in society or lose everything (including their lives) in a violent revolution.

A middle class person is poorer because someone else is rich though, it hurts middle class people the most to subsidize walmart's profits with taxes paid on social services to bring their employees up to a living wage.

DeathByGeekSquad:Jorn the Younger: DrPainMD: Is this the thread where everybody biatches about other people's money when they should be out earning money for themselves?

Is this the thread where conservatrolls show up to berate the poor for not having the good sense to be born wealthy, or attempt to maintain the fallacy that harder work turns into increased rewards?

Is this the thread where people have no job creativity and expect to make millions as a cubicle drone?

This is the thread where certain people who are doing just fine themselves TYVM, remind the droolers and the knuckle draggers that historically, both in our country and in others, this type of wealth inequality has led to massive financial upheaval at best (Great Depression, many other financial Panics), and at worst to violent revolution (French, Russian, Mexican et al). There are reasonable, pragmatic steps we can take, which we had in place at various times in the last 100 years when our country was doing better than it is now, which would help to set things on a more equal footing in the future. But go ahead and pretend like the only thing going on here is jealousy.

untaken_name:give me doughnuts: netcentric: Democrats are hoping angry taxpayers will blame the rich for having to send money to Washington

Class envy.

Despite record tax revenues, the federal government still racked up $755 billion deficit in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013

I think I know why there are issues for the middle class today. And it isn't because of a few wealthy individuals.

You have to work 107 days in America, just to pay your tax bill.

Maybe a large bloated Government is the problem.

And yet we have one of the lowest individual and corporate tax burdens in the developed world.So maybe the problem isn't bloated government.

Because spending 1.30 times what you take in is not a problem? Leaving a debt so large it will consume your descendants isn't a problem? Geez, what do you consider to be a problem?

Obviously, taxes are too low, and government spending is too high in specific areas.Raise taxes in the upper brackets to the levels they were in the Clinton years and cut Defense spending by a third (or more).

dready zim:Many years ago a wise man said that you either have to eliminate poverty for the masses or eliminate democracy for the masses because in a properly democratic society where the majority is poor they would just vote to take the money from the rich.

As this has not happened and in fact seems completely improbable I will let you draw your own conclusion as to the level of democracy in the United States...

The drooling masses of poor have been convinced to vote to give more money to the wealthy because they, too, might be wealthy one day?

IMO you gotta increase the minimum wage and possibly add some more tax brackets at the top. But at least increase the minimum wage... I know republicans/conservatives are fine with subsidizing wal-mart and mcdonalds profits with their tax money but I ain't.

Joe Blowme:dready zim: Many years ago a wise man said that you either have to eliminate poverty for the masses or eliminate democracy for the masses because in a properly democratic society where the majority is poor they would just vote to take the money from the rich.

As this has not happened and in fact seems completely improbable I will let you draw your own conclusion as to the level of democracy in the United States...

maddogdelta:HotWingConspiracy: untaken_name: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: Is this the thread where everybody biatches about other people's money when they should be out earning money for themselves?

Yeah massive wealth inequality exists because people are lazy!

In part, yes. People have consistently voted to abdicate personal responsibility onto the shoulders of others. Those others have taken extreme advantage of their position. That is human nature, and is, in part, caused by laziness.

Provide some examples.

The Walton family.

The Koch brothers

What personal responsibilities did people abdicate that these people took advantage of to accumulate wealth?

HotWingConspiracy:untaken_name: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: Is this the thread where everybody biatches about other people's money when they should be out earning money for themselves?

Yeah massive wealth inequality exists because people are lazy!

In part, yes. People have consistently voted to abdicate personal responsibility onto the shoulders of others. Those others have taken extreme advantage of their position. That is human nature, and is, in part, caused by laziness.

forcebender:For what it's worth, if you liquidated all that cash and redistributed to the entire US population (350M) that would be a payment of $142 a year for the next 40 years (in 2013 dollars.) Or a single payment of $5714 ... to EVERY person in the US.

FWIW, if you taxed that original portion at 1960's rates with exemptions, and paid for infrastructure / research like our grandparents did, our children's children would lead better lives as well.

Of course, the 1980's f*cked that idea over. Invest in the future? Pfft!

The wealthy are stealing money from the poor (yes in many cases it should be labelled as actual theft), shipping jobs overseas after maxing out the debt on the people in this country thereby limiting the ability to repay. I don't think think you can call that jealousy.

People are being finacially farked and hard. I think alot of it has to do with the debt collection agencies and their relationship to the companies they represent. It's more money for all if it goes thru DC.

Maybe you should fill out a police report

Kinda hopeless when they are bought out already. I'm not talking about the cops. I'm talking about the legal system......................

DONAHUE: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?

FRIEDMAN: Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

and yet, some still refuse to see./hearing what they want to hear, knowing only what they heard

/ObligReagan has been out of office for how many years now? Bush disagreed with his economic beliefs calling them "Voodoo economics" and changed the course.... leading to the bush recession. Remember "It's the economy stupid"?

So, how long has zero been in office? You're blaming Reagan who's been dead longer than zero has been at the helm.

So, you think that the bad economy of the late 80s is because of Bush sr.? lol oh god, it burns.

Aristocles:Neighborhood Watch: I've never understood why liberals are so obsessed with other peoples' money (and/or private property, in general).

Because, don't you see? In order for those rich folk to get richer, they literally had to take from the poor. There's simply no other way to acquire wealth since there's only so much cash in circulation. Cash money gets its value because of its scarcity, ergo, derp.

The cash has been printed and deposited directly in the accounts of rich people. They aren't literally taking it from the poor but the poor will be hurt the most when their few dollars are worth less.

Neighborhood Watch:I've never understood why liberals are so obsessed with other peoples' money (and/or private property, in general).

Because, don't you see? In order for those rich folk to get richer, they literally had to take from the poor. There's simply no other way to acquire wealth since there's only so much cash in circulation. Cash money gets its value because of its scarcity, ergo, derp.

For what it's worth, if you liquidated all that cash and redistributed to the entire US population (350M) that would be a payment of $142 a year for the next 40 years (in 2013 dollars.) Or a single payment of $5714 ... to EVERY person in the US.